RTI Activists Cite Fresh Data to Challenge Case Over Pandian Security

Bhubaneswar: Three Right to Information (RTI) activists, who were booked by Bhubaneswar police in 2024 for allegedly circulating “fake and misleading” information regarding the security cover of former BJD leader and ex-chief minister Naveen Patnaik’s close aide V K Pandian, have produced fresh RTI data to challenge the police action against them.

The activists claim that the latest information received under the RTI Act corroborates the details they had earlier made public, which had led to the registration of a criminal case against them.

“Police accused us of spreading false information even though whatever we shared was based on official RTI replies regarding Pandian’s security cover. On November 11 this year, we again sought the same details from the commissionerate police, and the reply matched the earlier information. This clearly shows that we were falsely implicated because Pandian was highly influential,” RTI activist Prakash Das said.

According to the latest RTI reply, V K Pandian was provided with two personal security officers, one havildar, four armed police reserve personnel deployed as house guards, one to four escorts in a vehicle during road travel, four women constables, and one section force. The RTI response further stated that all these security arrangements were sanctioned during the tenure of the previous BJD government.

In April 2024, Saheed Nagar police had registered a case against RTI activists Prakash Das, Srikant Pakal and Pradip Pradhan, days after they released a letter at a press conference detailing Pandian’s security cover.

At the time, the then Bhubaneswar police commissioner Sanjeeb Panda dismissed the letter as “forged” and publicly denied that such information had ever been provided by the commissionerate police. Following this denial, a case was lodged against the three activists.

The activists now maintain that the fresh RTI reply contradicts the police’s earlier stand and strengthens their claim that the case against them was unjustified.